Escalators (London Underground) (Hansard, 9 May 1994)

§ 6. Mrs. Roche
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the recommendation of the Fennell inquiry to replace all the wooden escalators on the London underground to be implemented.

§ The minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)
London Underground has replaced the timber skirtings, balustrades and advertisement panels on all its escalators with non-combustible materials. Its programme for replacing wooden treads and risers is still in progress and, with the support of the fire authority, London Underground has asked the Home Secretary to amend the relevant regulations in order to permit fire authorities to grant exemptions in respect of wooden treads and risers beyond 1 January 1996.

§ Mrs. Roche
Does the Minister agree that, given that the Fennell inquiry found out that a lit cigarette on a wooden escalator started the King's Cross fire and recommended that wooden treads be urgently removed, the Government's attitude is one of utter complacency towards the travelling public in London?

§ Mr. Norris
No. The installation of sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment and improved escalator cleaning and inspection procedures are the important elements in ensuring that a tragedy like King's Cross does not recur. I stress that the relevant fire authorities have supported London Underground in its application to the Home Office to ensure that the programme is carried out, but in an appropriate time scale.

§ Mr. John Marshall
How much has London Underground spent on safety since the publication of the Fennell report? How many recommendations were in that report and how many of them have been implemented by London Underground since the report was published?

§ Mr. Norris
London Underground has spent £250 million on safety since King's Cross. There were 127 recommendations in the Fennell report, of which 114 have already been implemented.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Given that London transport is the subject which most exercises Londoners—according to replies sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment—and given that Ministers share the concern to maximise investment, the number of users, and safety, will the Minister seriously consider consulting the using public of London before fixing the amount of money to be raised next year, so that choices about investment can be made by the people rather than just by the Government?

§ Mr. Norris
No. It is appropriate that the investment priorities for the underground should be determined by London Underground in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway
I welcome the money that has been spent on safety. Indeed, together with my hon. Friend I have been to see the safety measures implemented at Greenford station and elsewhere. We are grateful for them. Will my hon. Friend consider a down escalator—no, I mean an up escalator—at Greenford station, as that is greatly needed?

§ Mr. Norris
Up or down, I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

§ Mr. Raynsford
Does the Minister accept that 38 escalators still have wooden treads and risers? Does he recall that one of the important recommendations in the Fennell report was that replacement of wooden risers should be urgently sought because of the discovery of the trench effect? Did not the former Secretary of State for Transport promise in November 1988 that London Transport had been asked to implement that recommendation urgently? Why, five and a half years later, is the Department trying to renege on that undertaking? Is not it purely because the Government have cut London Transport's investment programme by £1 billion compared with what was promised at the last election? When will the Government recognise that they cannot jeopardise public safety in order to make cuts in London Transport's funding?

§ Mr. Norris
That is not good enough. First, the rate of replacement for escalators should be about six a year. If the rate were increased, it would impose intolerable congestion on the whole system—not something which would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, independent analysis has concluded that replacing the treads and risers in advance of their normal replacement would be very bad value for money and would offer very little compared with the other items that I mentioned, such as sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment, better inspection under escalators and so on. That is the way to do these things. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to try to spread fear and alarm where there is absolutely no cause for them.